Man, missed the talk and no drinking after party too! Beer numbs the knee pain, I think the saying goes. You know, we do have a lot of good beer since you last lived here. Got yer evolution amber (intelligently designed – ha!), Polygamy porter, and of course, the Nitro Stout. No funny name, just good beer.

To top it off, I’ll have to read about it in Utah’s second least conservative paper.

I was pretty pleased that I got out to see it, even if the freeway on ramps straight down the hill confused me and had me driving in circles long enough to be thirty minutes late for my date after it (we weren’t really each other’s types anyway, and I was a bit too excited about replacing religion to go along with her ‘spiritual but not religious’ kind of stance.)

Well, if you speak the truth, saying that the emperor has no clothes, and indeed, the emperor has no clothes, then everyone who has a vested interest in the emperor’s non-clothes being of superior quality, finest threads and most stylish cut will be calling you rude, mocking and annoying.

And the comment thread on the Trib is already 22 screens deep, 212 comments and counting [as of 8:20 AM Easter morning]. PZ seems to have put a cat among the canaries. [I know, I know, like that’s news…..]

1.) “He says an atheist believes in three core values: truth, autonomy and community.”
1a.) Apparently, “community” only seems to include people who believe as Paul Meyers does. Isn’t one of an atheist’s criticisms of religion is the exclusion of others not of their faith?

2.) “We love people who stand up for themselves.”2a.) It would appear the Paul Meyers likes only people who stand up for themselves AND don’t believe in Jesus. Otherwise, Paul would appreciate that many of the religious have held to their beliefs even though many have been killed for doing so.

3.) “From the perspective of an atheist, they all look like total nut jobs,”
4.) “But I’m sorry,” he quipped. “I still don’t like you. … You believe in some outrageous bullsh–.”

3a & 4a.) I have to note that nowhere in the article does Paul Meyers address the need to treat one another with respect. Perhaps because Paul views the world as “facts and data” and is has “zero” willingness to compromise, he sees no scientific reason for respect.

The story about PZ’s talk is now #4 in the “Most Popular” list on the SL Tribune site.

From the comments section:

I have a question for everyone and I really believe it is legit. Why are atheists, as a group, the least likely to give to charity compared to all religious groups (if you remove the charitable givings given to one’s church, it is still higher)? Also, why are atheists more likely to commit suicide compared to any other religious group?

If you are an atheist, what do you think is the cause of these issues? Is being an atheist a miserable existence? Is there some kind of support group that can be formed to help everyone deal with these issues? I ask this because I don’t know but one atheist and I really don’t know where to find these answers. Thanks.

Atheists always deny that they are a religion. But they, along with the humanists, organize themselves as if they were a religion following a set of core beliefs. Is it necessary for atheists to hold national conventions, replete with delegates and speakers? What are they mobilizing for? I dread to imagine. Also, how do atheists deal with ex-atheists? Are they ostracized and chastised? Are they regarded as apostates and traitors?

Atheists always deny that they are a religion. But they, along with the humanists, organize themselves as if they were a religion following a set of core beliefs. Is it necessary for atheists to hold national conventions, replete with delegates and speakers? What are they mobilizing for? I dread to imagine. Also, how do atheists deal with ex-atheists? Are they ostracized and chastised? Are they regarded as apostates and traitors?

Boring, same old tripe, idiotic canards which have already been addressed countless times…tsk, bad work, yec. I’ll give that hot mess a D-. Put more work into it. That means you have to think, independently and critically. Focus on original thought, Dear, not original sin.

Silly PZ. True Mormons read the church-owned Deseret News, not the (or as we called it, even when I was Mormon, the Desperate News.)

…

Is it necessary for artists, comic book lovers, movie goers, burners, techie folks and the like to have national conventions? Nobody is calling Burning Man, Comic Con, or SXSW a sign of religiosity. (although if one votes Republican, I can see why you might think a national convention was the sign of a religion.)

Ex-atheists are subjected to the same scrutiny of their ideas as atheists and non-atheists are. So sometimes we do break out into howls of laughter over stuff they put forward, but it’s not like declaring yourself ex-atheist brings any punitive measures.

But they, along with the humanists, organize themselves as if they were a religion following a set of core beliefs.

And organizing around core beliefs are exclusive to religion? I suppose the ACLU will be surprised to know this, along with practically any other organization which purports to serve a purpose.

Is it necessary for atheists to hold national conventions, replete with delegates and speakers? What are they mobilizing for? I dread to imagine.

*tightens laces on jackboots*

Also, how do atheists deal with ex-atheists? Are they ostracized and chastised? Are they regarded as apostates and traitors?

No chastising, at least not from me. But heaps of ridicule and disdain at their poor choice. Besides, if someone decides to become a god-botherer of one variant or another, they pretty much WANT to be ostracized, going so far as to cut all ties and recant their earlier (correctly) held conclusions.

Atheists dont help their cause with such insults and incivility. I think his language proves that Atheists arent as good for society as the religious.

Sigh. Tired. Such a tired, old complaint. It just lies there and refuses to address the substance of PZ’s talk.

Of course, the article doesn’t provide much evidence for “such insults and incivility” beyond the fact that PZ objects to moderate Christian beliefs as well as rat-brained, fringe beliefs. Still, any amount of comment on “faith” is considered an insult.

Even if the news story provided evidence of gratuitous incivility, it would be nice if, for a change, those defending religion could come up with something other than the argument that being polite is better than being right.

Is it jackboots time already? I thought we were waiting for the orbital atheism-inducing lasers to be calibrated first, and I’ve barely begun building my army of flesh-hungry clones from the genetic material of aborted fetuses.

Is it necessary for atheists to hold national conventions, replete with delegates and speakers?

From personal experience, it’s certainly helpful to people like me who live in the heart of the Babble Belt to know that there are other nonbelievers out there, even though I have yet to attend any conventions. Sometimes just knowing there are other people out there who don’t buy into the crazy religious bullshit some of us are surrounded by every day is enough.

Also, how do atheists deal with ex-atheists? Are they ostracized and chastised? Are they regarded as apostates and traitors?

We gather in front of a statue of Darwin and pants them while singing Tim Minchin’s “Pope Song.” They’re then made to return their Atheist Secret Decoder Rings, any copies of The Atheist Agenda they may have (both printed and digital versions) and the complimentary copy of To Serve Babies (it’s a cookbook!) they were given when they joined. Pointing and laughing isn’t strictly required, but it is encouraged.

You have to be pretty stupid (and yes, yec123, I know, you are pretty stupid) to wonder why a group who are routinely the target of hate campaigns, would feel the need to mobilise for collective self-defense. Then of course there is the concerted campaign by fuckwits like you to sabotage women’s rights to control their own bodies, LGBT rights to be accorded equal treatment, and science education, – although let me say at once that in these regards, quite a few of the less loathsome and loopy religious believers are on our side.

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: No you’re not wrong.
Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You’re not wrong Walter. You’re just an asshole.
Walter Sobchak: Okay then.

When the religious say “you’re just an asshole” the “you’re not wrong” is always silent.

Zinc Avenger

Is it jackboots time already? I thought we were waiting for the orbital atheism-inducing lasers to be calibrated first, and I’ve barely begun building my army of flesh-hungry clones from the genetic material of aborted fetuses.

I think it’s a bad idea to fire off the atheism-inducing lasers after creating an army of delicious fetuses. The clones won’t be able to resist and will simply cannibalize each other! Please follow the protocol outlined in your Evil Atheist Conspiracy handbook!

Silly PZ. True Mormons read the church-owned Deseret News, not the (or as we called it, even when I was Mormon, the Desperate News.)

The Salt Lake Tribune employs lots of mormons, is influenced by mormons and by the LDS Church, and has as it’s Chairman and Publisher a quite religious man named William Dean Singleton (a Baptist). Those facts may account for the choice of the most-Hitler-like photo of PZ being used for the lead.

The SL Tribune began life as a voice solidly for mormonism, an outlet for the LDS way of thinking.

In 1873 three Kansas businessmen, Frederic Lockley, George F. Prescott and A.M. Hamilton, purchased the paper and turned the newspaper into an anti-Mormon organ …

In 1901 newly-elected Roman Catholic United States Senator Thomas Kearns, and his business partner David Keith, secretly bought the Tribune. Kearns made strides to eliminate the paper’s anti-Mormon overtones, and succeeded in maintaining good relationships with the mostly-LDS state legislature which had elected him to the Senate. …

As you can see, the Salt Lake Tribune has a checkered history, with various persons vying to make it a newspaper that offers balance to the predominant mormon culture; and with various other persons trying to turn it into a stealth mormon media outlet.

The difficulty of striking a balance between printing unbiased news and raising the ire of mormons goes on today. What one sees in the comment sections is that mormons think the SL Tribune is not positive enough about their religion, and non-mormons think the SL Tribune is too careful in tiptoeing around controversial topics.

The Trib photographer was sitting just behind spouse and I, and anytime PZ would make a substantial gesture, the lens would click.

I’m annoyed but not surprised at what didn’t seem notable to the author.
1. The stated reason for criticizing liberal, mostly pro-science religious people is because they do damage by providing “an escape hatch” any time they want to avoid an uncomfortable reality.
2. PZ did not pass blanket approval on all atheists, and pointed out areas where we need improvement.
3. There is zero mention of SHIFT, the local humanist group hosting the speaker. FSM forbid that we acknowledge & risk giving publicity to alien invading atheists in the Morridor.

For what it’s worth, I find it hilarious that you’re defending the Bible with Star Trek. Nicely done, good sir/madam. We could all use more such sophisticated theology. *doffs hat*

Gene Roddenberry was a staunch atheist. Many Trekkies are atheists. What is regarded as “miraculous” or “magical” today is just the routine science of tomorrow. There’s another miracle Star Trek technology can make seem mundane: turning water into wine. The standard food replicator can easily achieve this feat. Jesus was just ahead of his time.

What is regarded as “miraculous” or “magical” today is just the routine science of tomorrow.

The routine science of today tells me that blowflies would have arrived on Jesus’ body, possibly within minutes, and begun laying eggs in his nose, mouth, and likely the wound in his side. He would be crawling with maggots long before his ascension, and probably with beetles feeding on the maggots as well.
Obviously I’ve watched more CSI than Star Trek in recent years.

There was only one truly idiotic question, one rambling near apologist, and the always popular how do I deal with devout friends & family.

The idiot expressed his opinion that the president rather than being a secret Muslim is actually “deep down” an atheist. The only useful thing he asked was when PZ expected an openly non-believer to get elected.

The apologist talked about religions that are fluffy touchy “ways of life” rather than *really* about supernatural beliefs.

Let’s see, there was a question about how to minimize negative/pejorative aspects of the word “atheist.”

I was unclear and gave the impression I was taking about atheists using justified anger as a tactic, rather than opponents using accusations of irrational anger as a means of stripping a movement of momentum & power.

So even after several people point out that Star Trek is, you know, fiction – that’s M.A.K.I.N.G. U.P. S.T.O.R.I.E.S. to the non-cognitive elite – yec123 actually comes back and tries the exact same thing again?

And, yet, many people pronounced dead for days have gone on to be revived.

Believing someone to be dead and actually being dead are two different things. Suspended states happen in nature, (amphibians, insects, bacteria) so it’s plausible that such a thing could happen in people, given the right circumstances. But that’s not a miraculous thing. It’s a just-so thing, if and when it does happen. Because the body would be operating naturally, within the realm of the real.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot every time you post! The laughter is unbearable.

No, I didn’t say that exactly: By first century standards it was a miracle. But it would not have been remarkable in the 24th century.

And by twenty-first century standards, they’re both fairy tales. What.

And, yet, many people pronounced dead for days have gone on to be revived.

Citation -fucking- needed.

Difficulty: Jesus and Lazarus don’t count.

No, I didn’t say that exactly: By first century standards it was a miracle. But it would not have been remarkable in the 24th century.

First off, it’s clear that you have no idea when science fiction is. Maybe, Roddenberry’s version of resurrecting people doesn’t seem so fantastic because it has been a story-telling trope since the beginning of time.

Zombie Jesus
Info: Zombie Jesus has not been seen, but is often mentioned by The Professor. Jesus’ second coming was in 2443. He is featured in The Story of Xmas
Quote – Fry: I feel like I was mauled by Jesus.

Regular Jesus
Info: The standard Christian version of Jesus apparently exists alongside (but likely separate from) the zombie version. People in the future know enough about him that they recognize Zoidberg’s Jesus costume as such (and don’t call him “Zombie Jesus”). It is unclear what role the figure of Regular Jesus plays in modern religion, however.
Quote – Zoidberg (as Jesus): [Running away] I help those who help themselves!

Robot Jesus
Robot Jesus, the Robotic version of Jesus, is presumably believed to be the Messiah by some religion, such as Robotology. Robot Judaism, however, only acknowledges his existence and his very good programming
Fry: So what’s the deal? You guys don’t believe in Robot Jesus?
Rab-Bot: We believe he was built and that he was a very well programmed Robot. But he wasn’t our Messiah.

I am amazed. You atheists are so pessimistic about the future progress of science. I thought you were supposed to be pro-science, but it seems you have serious doubts. What little faith you have in the power of knowledge!

I think this discussion shows the profound difference between theists and atheists. The former believe that all things really are possible whereas the atheists don’t believe in anything – not even themselves.

Seriously, how does yec know what’s going to happen in the 24th century?

Although… in Mass Effect, Shepard was resurrected after being dead for two years. The first game takes place in 2183– maybe Rodenberry was wrong and we’re even closer to resurrecting people than he thought!

I think this discussion shows the profound difference between theists and atheists. The former believe that all things really are possible whereas the atheists don’t believe in anything – not even themselves.

Because none of us is convinced that Star Trek proves the resurrection does not mean the none of us believe in anything.

I am amazed. You atheists are so pessimistic about the future progress of science.

No, it’s just that most of us aren’t so stupid as to think we can predict the future. Even if we’re talking about your crush Gene Roddenberry, there’s no evidence that he thought he was predicting the future– he knew that he was writing fiction.

I think this discussion shows the profound difference between theists and atheists. The former believe that all things really are possible whereas the atheists don’t believe in anything – not even themselves.

*yawn*

Listen, you don’t believe in miracles, which is kind of one of the tenants of your fucking faith. Why should I listen to you about anything when it comes to religion?

Here’s the deal: I can tell fiction from reality. You, obviously, cannot. I understand the difference between mythology/fairy tales/fiction and history. You, on the other hand, are too fucking stupid to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

I think this discussion shows the profound difference between theists and atheists. The former believe that all things really are possible whereas the atheists don’t believe in anything – not even themselves.

Not quite.

Xians sit on their asses and believe the shit out of things. They call that useless activity “praying”.

What you fail to realise is that things don’t happen ’cause you believe in them, but because we who don’t “believe in things” get off our asses and spend our time solving the problems, which, as opposed to prayer, actually works.

It’s clear yec123 is an all-purpose idiot, completely unable to tell fact from fiction even outside his supposed religion.

And, yet, atheists read fiction like the “Selfish Gene”, the “Blind Watchmaker”, and all of the Isaac Asimov collection, as if it were factually sound. Don’t be such a hypocritical little turdster-atheist.

I think it is pretty “miraculous” that a newt can regenerate its own eye when it is surgically removed. But when Jesus gave sight back to a blind man, you laugh out loud and think it is nonsense.

There are lots of true believers posting below the SL Tribune article who are adhering to the spelling protocols of the Slobbering Idiots group.

Example:

So, Meyers believes in “community” as long as everyone in his community thinks and believes the way he does. That’s just what Hitler proposed. Categorize all those who think differently as weirdos, nut jobs and undesirables, then blame all of your current problems on them, then finally, get rid of them one way or another.

What is regarded as “miraculous” or “magical” today is just the routine science of tomorrow. There’s another miracle Star Trek technology can make seem mundane: turning water into wine. The standard food replicator can easily achieve this feat. Jesus was just ahead of his time.

So in 500 years, what Jesus did will no longer be considered a miracle by anyone? Cool.

Of course, you are also explaining why many here are atheists — there are natural explanations for almost everything in the bible (well, aside from the outright lies (pi, bats, geography, history)) and what is not explicable makes no sense.

And, yet, many people pronounced dead for days have gone on to be revived.

Citations on that one.

No, I didn’t say that exactly: By first century standards it was a miracle. But it would not have been remarkable in the 24th century.

By first century standards, the sun coming up each day was a miracle. So was the diversity of life. And seasons, disease, genetics, geology, thunder, lightning, fossils, fish reproduction, etc. That has all been explained by science. Claiming that Jesus had science unavailable to us today claims that it was not a miracle.

You atheists are so pessimistic about the future progress of science.

No. We accept the scientific method as the best available way to exand our corpus of knowledge. To assume that everything worth knowing is a bunch of goatherder’s myths from eons ago? Now that is pessimism. After all, the Young Earth Creationists keep claiming that all life is actually devolving — that is why we no longer live as long as Noah!

yec, truly. Are you seriously under the impression that anyone here thinks Star Trek is non-fiction? “The Last Question”? “I, Robot”? Do you actually think that atheists take these works as prophecies of things to come, rather than creative fiction based on imaginative guesses about possibilities? What has possibly led you to think that?

Except that those are not fiction. They may be incorrect, but they are based on research that accurately reflects reality.

But when Jesus gave sight back to a blind man, you laugh out loud and think it is nonsense.

People and newts are different. Their common ancestor is back ’round the Devonian (IIRC). I know they can regrow limbs (the newts, that is), so why can’t Jesus or any of your gods regrow the limb of a soldier wounded in combat?

Who’s harshing?

You?

One may find crap thoroughly enjoyable.

And you do not. So why are you here and why are you bothering to comment?

I just got through saying (in a manner of speaking, you know, using a creditable device of something called SATIRE) that the thread had become a most amusing farce. If I’m not much mistaken, anyone can see how absurd it is. I’m enjoying something immensely, joining in, and you get all uptight and hot and bothered about it.

Worse, somebody ELSE decides to call out their mistaken impression, and an ignominious cascade of following ensues.

And, yet, atheists read fiction like the “Selfish Gene”, the “Blind Watchmaker”, and all of the Isaac Asimov collection, as if it were factually sound.

What a fuckwit you are. You have demonstrated your comprehensive ignorance of evolutionary biology in another thread, so you are naturally unable to distinguish popular science books from fiction.

I think it is pretty “miraculous” that a newt can regenerate its own eye when it is surgically removed. But when Jesus gave sight back to a blind man, you laugh out loud and think it is nonsense.

You’re wrong: it’s not miraculous that a newt can regenerate its lens (I don’t know whether they can regenerate a whole eye), although it is remarkable; it’s an entirely natural process. Of course I laugh at the stupid stories about your favourite zombie, because they are nearly as fucking stupid as you are.

So in 500 years, what Jesus did will no longer be considered a miracle by anyone? Cool.

Yes, I believe so. At least, it won’t seem so spectacular in the 24 century. But Jesus achieved his “miracles” without the aid of any equipment. He could manipulate matter and energy simply using his mind. I think the correct technical term is “psychopoeisis”. Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

He could manipulate matter and energy simply using his mind. I think the correct technical term is “psychopoeisis”. Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

Look, I know you’d like it if science fiction was true. I’ve enjoyed my share of Anne McCaffrey novels too.

But Jesus achieved his “miracles” without the aid of any equipment. He could manipulate matter and energy simply using his mind.

And you can prove that this happened? You have evidence?

I think the correct technical term is “psychopoeisis”. Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

There are a shitload of things that the US Military investigated. And closed the book on them.

So you’ve gone from ‘Star Trek’ therefore Jesus to the US Military therefore Jesus?

He could manipulate matter and energy simply using his mind. I think the correct technical term is “psychopoeisis”. Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

FFS, I think it’s a rapturoid. They actually believe this sort of shit too, they have whole threads on it.

Hey, yec! *Duck* We’re sending in the black helicopters. Our soldiers can shoot evil atheist rays from their eyes. Maybe you should head to the cellar and don’t forget your tinfoil beanie.

Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis.

Ah yes, the military remote viewing program. The program with the unbroken, perfect record of total failure.

You do realize, I hope, that the main reason the US military does it is because they deliberately wanted Soviet spies to think they were doing it. The whole thing was a Cold War mind screw for the benefit of the Soviets.

Er…I think you’ll find that scientists don’t understand how the newt does it, especially as the new lens emerges from the edge of the iris and not from the epidermis, as happens during ontogeny.

So there are stem cells in the Newt iris. That’s supposed to evidence for something supernatural?

So scientists don’t yet know all the exact details of the complete mechanism by which it happens.

Er…I think you’ll find that scientists don’t understand how the newt does it, especially as the new lens emerges from the edge of the iris and not from the epidermis, as happens during ontogeny. – yec123

Er… are you suggesting that it is not a natural process? If so, on what evidence?

Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

Bwaw-haw-hawwww! We’ve got a live one here, folks. Yecch, I suggest you read Jon Ronson’s The Men Who Stare At Goats. Yes, there were fools inside the US military who wasted time and money on “parapsychological” hooey, but if it worked, why did Obama have to send the Navy Seals with helicopters and guns to kill Osama bin Laden? Why not just recruit some agents with paranormal powers to do the job?

You do realize, I hope, that the main reason the US military does it is because they deliberately wanted Soviet spies to think they were doing it. The whole thing was a Cold War mind screw for the benefit of the Soviets. – Amphiox

Really? Evidence? I think “military intelligence”, that well-known oxymoron, is an adequate explanation.

Tell me, where in the genome of the newt are the instructions “when crazy human plucks out lens of eye, make new lens from out of the edge of the iris.” I’d like to know.

Once again yech betrays its ignorance of how genetic regulation works. It’s simply a matter of turning on the same genetic program that produced the eye in the first place during embryogenesis, in response to signals released during the injury that destroys the old lens. And THAT part’s just an elaboration of regular wound healing. The location of the stem cells that initiate the process being in the iris instead of the epidermis is just a detail.

Of course, flatworms are even more remarkable. You can cut them into little pieces and each will form a new flatworm. So, the practice of regeneration was in place long before Jesus.

In other words, flatworm cells are more capable of dedifferentiation and redifferentiation than human cells. Flatworms are MORE LIKE SPONGES, and hence, MORE LIKE UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS, than human cells. Flatworms are a TRANSITIONAL FORM between very primitive, non-committed metazoans like sponges, and more derived, highly committed metazoans, like mammals.

It’s nice to see yech conceding the point it spent an entire other thread arguing against. It means it is actually capable of learning something!

Literally. The two are the same process. There is absolutely nothing remarkable or miraculous about it.

In fact, the remarkable thing is actually why in god’s name we mammals CAN’T regenerate? Why has our wound healing ability been nerfed beyond the “regrow some lost skin layers” stage, and stopped from going further? Because that is literally what happens. The process is ACTIVELY INHIBITED. It’s not that we don’t have the genetic programs for full regeneration, we actually have them, inherited from the common ancestor we share with the newts (And actively USED during embryogenesis, a mammalian embryo that has a limb amputated early enough during embryogenesis will actually regrow the whole limb and be born completely intact). But those programs are ACTIVELY TURNED OFF “prematurely”, some time before birth.

Really, it wouldn’t have been a miracle for a human amputee to regrow a lost limb, if there hadn’t already been REVERSE-MIRACLE (malevocle?) that stopped mammals from regrowing lost limbs in the first place.

Once again yech betrays its ignorance of how genetic regulation works. It’s simply a matter of turning on the same genetic program that produced the eye in the first place during embryogenesis, in response to signals released during the injury that destroys the old lens. And THAT part’s just an elaboration of regular wound healing. The location of the stem cells that initiate the process being in the iris instead of the epidermis is just a detail.

No, you are simply ignorant about lens development in newts. I suggest you read this excellent paper on the subject:

In short, you are wrong. The lens is observed to regenerate out of the dorsal iris, whereas it emerges from the skin during ontogeny. So it can’t be the same genetic program being invoked as it involves different tissue and a different developmental path.

Flatworms are MORE LIKE SPONGES, and hence, MORE LIKE UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS, than human cells. Flatworms are a TRANSITIONAL FORM between very primitive, non-committed metazoans like sponges, and more derived, highly committed metazoans, like mammals.

Nope. Flatworms are true multicellular organisms. However, being invertebrates, they are naturally more flexible and have less specialized cell types. The process of generating a new flatworm from the tissue of another is similar to how a human can regenerate a new liver. In any case, planarian regeneration is remarkable. They are expert at cloning themselves.

The lens is observed to regenerate out of the dorsal iris, whereas it emerges from the skin during ontogeny.

So what? Both the dorsal iris and the skin are made up of cells which all have identical DNA instructions. The same genetic programs can be activated in either place.

So it can’t be the same genetic program being invoked as it involves different tissue and a different developmental path.

Of course it can. Your ignorance of gene regulation is showing yet again.

Nope. Flatworms are true multicellular organisms.

As are sponges. But they are MORE LIKE unicellular organisms than mammals are. It`s a continuum from complete unicellularity to complex multicellularity, all the way down. (And up).

However, being invertebrates, they are naturally more flexible and have less specialized cell types.

In other words, LESS DIFFERENTIATED. LESS COMMITTED TO BEING DIFFERENTIATED. In other words, MORE LIKE AN INDEPENDENT UNICELLULAR ORGANISM.

In other words, a TRANSITIONAL FORM, demonstrating the evolution cell differentiation.

Thanks for conceding the argument, again.

The process of generating a new flatworm from the tissue of another is similar to how a human can regenerate a new liver. In any case, planarian regeneration is remarkable. They are expert at cloning themselves.

BOTH of which are part of the same continuum, which on one end lies the completely independent single cell, and the single celled zygote that is the beginning of the life cycle of every multicellular organism, and on the other end lies the terminally differentiated cell types that have almost never de-differentiate, like neurons.

It’s ALL a continuum, all the way down.

So thanks for bringing up the human liver cell, YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how multicellular organisms, even highly derived ones like humans, lie on the same continuum with single celled organisms.

Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

That doesn’t speak well of the US army’s top scientists.

The nazis too were deluded into pointless and rather cruel research about so-called “paranormal” powers. Doesn’t help our opinion of their intellectual qualities either.

I must admit I don’t have a very high opinion of the army’s research programs after having read a bit about how they conducted that on the atomic bomb, and how very close to complete disaster they came, several times out of sheer stupidity.

Wow, I figured after getting schooled so heavily in the other thread, yec would have bailed – but no, here we are, Adventures with Herpy Derpy, Episode II!

He could manipulate matter and energy simply using his mind. I think the correct technical term is “psychopoeisis”. Actually, the U.S military’s top scientists have long been investigating such “paranormal powers”, such as telepathy or teleopsis. They know they exist, even if atheists do not.

And the raging success they had with these programs is why current US Army kit does not include a rifle, radio or flashlight.

Oh, wait…

Tell me, where in the genome of the newt are the instructions “when crazy human plucks out lens of eye, make new lens from out of the edge of the iris.” I’d like to know.

In the bits that code protein signalers to replicate stem cells at the site of optical damage, from whatever source.
Next?

Of course, flatworms are even more remarkable. You can cut them into little pieces and each will form a new flatworm. So, the practice of regeneration was in place long before Jesus.

Which demonstrates exactly that Jesus is not required for flatworm regeneration… so: well spotted (?)

I mean, ten full points for noticing something true, but minus about 15K for relevance.

So what? Both the dorsal iris and the skin are made up of cells which all have identical DNA instructions. The same genetic programs can be activated in either place.

I am flagging this comment as an example of ignorance in science. Let me try and elucidate for the benefit of the atheists here:

1. Yes, all cells have exactly the same genomes and DNA.

2. The remarkable thing about development is cell differentiation which entails cells only producing certain proteins and not others. For example, the cells in your anus do not produce light-sensitive opsins (unless, of course, the sun shines out of it).

3. The developmental path and construction of the lens of the newt’s eye during ontogeny is entirely different from that of regeneration following amputation. In the first case, both lens and iris are developed separately out of the epidermis. The regenerative step, however, uses the same genes but they are expressed in another way. Physically, part of the dorsal iris swells and gradually assumes the shape of the lens.

4. Hence, regeneration is remarkable because it is so different to what happens during normal morphogenesis. It shows that there is no fixed developmental program and that organic structures have the ability to self-organize and morph into different ones.

Those failed military experiments, in addition to non military work done in the1900’s, also definitively demonstrates that all the psychic stuff was not simply dismissed by science because of some bias against considering the supernatural. No, scientists were PLENTY open minded about the matter, and we know it is phooey because we actually TESTED it, and proved it to be nonexistent.

Indeed, the science was sufficiently open on the matter that Arthur Clarke was willing to include it in Childhood’s End and consider it to be valid for hard SF.

yec, you’re contradicting yourself. Did Jesus perform miracles, or did Jesus perform sleight-of-hand based on natural processes explainable by science? Obviously the events were taken as miracles and he did not disabuse them of that notion. So was he a miracle worker or a liar?

The developmental path and construction of the lens of the newt’s eye during ontogeny is entirely different from that of regeneration following amputation. In the first case, both lens and iris are developed separately out of the epidermis. The regenerative step, however, uses the same genes but they are expressed in another way.

“Uses the same genes” = NOT “entirely different”. And so we have found YET MORE words in the english language whose meaning yech obviously does not understand.

As for “expressed in another way”, this is vague enough that it can mean anything – a vagueness that is the hallmark of a dishonest argument.

But at the most basic level, no. The gene expression is essentially the same. It uses the same regulatory DNA elements, activated by the same modulating signalling proteins. Even the very order of expression and level of expression of the various genes is extremely similar.

The remarkable thing about development is cell differentiation which entails cells only producing certain proteins and not others.

And the remarkable thing about cell differentiation is that it does not have to always be irreversible. In fact, exactly as evolutionary theory predicts, it runs the entire spectrum from completely undifferentiated, through differentiated with various degrees of ease of reversibility, to irreversibly differentiated.

And of course, dishonest as it is, yech fails to mention that the one type of differentiated cell that has the LEAST to do with the topic it is debating, regeneration, is the irreversibly differentiated cell (which it in its blinkered binary thinking seems to think is the only kind of differentiated cell that there is). These cells aren’t involved in regeneration, except to release the “distress” signals that start off the process when they are injured and die.

Regeneration is accomplished by stem cells. And stem cells are undifferentiated cells, whose defining characteristic is their similarity to embryonic cells, again on a continuum from pluripotent stem cells that are basically almost as flexible as the zygote itself, to more limited lineage-defined stem cells whose flexibility may be limited to a tissue type, or organ.

Hence, regeneration is remarkable because it is so different to what happens during normal morphogenesis.

It uses the SAME genes, the SAME regulatory DNA elements, the SAME signalling proteins, the SAME modulating genes, the SAME structural proteins, the SAME undifferentiated, semi-differentiated, and fully-differentiated cell types, performing the SAME set of functions, the SAME cascades of sequential gene expression. No matter how one looks at it, it is OBVIOUS to any honest observer that the similarities vastly outweigh, and are much more fundamental, than the differences, which are only fine details.

It’s like saying a 1 kg steel ball painted red is fundamentally different from a 1 kg steel ball painted blue solely because of the different color of paint, and ignoring that they both have the same mass, composition, shape, and size.

The fixation on Star Trek is ironic, since of all the amazing things in that fictional universe, the ONE THING that is NOT present within it, are supernatural deities, and EVERYTHING within it has a material explanation.

“why does god need a spaceship?”. The whole awful awful movie to set up one mildly amusing punch line.

So, have we gotten anywhere in our attempt to teach yec the difference between fiction and reality yet? No? Oh, well. Something like 75% of the people in th US have the same problem. I admit the yec is moderately entertaining, in the “I can’t believe s/he said that” category.

Customer: “What!?! Why would anyone buy this?! Vampires and werewolves are cool and hot! You make me sick selling this! Haven’t you ever seen Twilight!? Vampires are like people!” *runs out of the shop with tears in her eyes*

Me: “I feel so sorry for her boyfriend.”

(Note: 40 degrees Celsius is about 104 degrees Fahrenheit.)

Me: *on the phone* “Hi, I’ll need you to come and pick up your son right away. He’s not feeling very well.”

Me: “I’m sorry, but I still think you need to take him to the doctor.”

Mother: “Ugh, fine. I’ll come and get him, but the doctor will only say what I told you!”

Customer: “I want to know what romance books are good right now. I want a really good romance, since I’m going on vacation.”

Me: “Well, I don’t really read romance novels, but I can tell you what is popular. Have you read any Sherrilyn Kenyon?”

Customer: “What is it? Is it like vampires or something?”

Me: “It’s considered paranormal romance and is very popular.”

Customer: “Well, I don’t want anything unrealistic.”

Me: “Well, then you probably don’t want a romance novel.”

Customer: “I want something realistic like Twilight. Do you have any books like that?”

(This museum has a large Titanic exhibit. Many of the rescued survivors were brought to Halifax after the ship sank. Many of the recovered bodies of the vicitms are buried here as well. A tourist approaches me.)

Perhaps some, Ing, but I don’t think that many. There’s a great deal of stupid out there, I’ve encountered it too much in the wild. I’ve actually heard some people talking about characters in books that way at the bookstore.

I once chatted with a woman who insisted that Laurel K. Hamilton’s books were based on TruFax, ffs.

[looks a link in #252]. Caine, you really *are* a monster aren’t you? That site is like top shelf blow in a shiny, shiny golden box to someone like me who’s entire work history has been in retail. Sigh, there goes my day…..

The customer who insisted that The Bridges of Madison County was a true story? The customer who came in a couple of times a week to rearrange the horror section to her own arcane classification system? The customer who spent 10 minutes working himself up to ask for condoms and didn’t understand why I burst out laughing after telling him “We’re a book store, a USED book store.” The customer who dragged me outside to show me the black helicopters who later used a valid firearms acquisition certificate as ID when he sold the store some CD’s? The soon-to-be-ex customer I caught wanking off looking out from the store at my employee who was shoveling snow off the front walk? An employee who happened to be female, but was dressed up in so many layers of clothing that there was no way you could have told that just by looking. Nah, maybe not that last one. It’s a little too creepy even though she thought it was hilarious. Employee: “Uhm, did you see what I was wearing!?” Followed by tear inducing laughter.

Yah, now that I think about it I tell the black helicopter guy story as a condemnation of the system of firearms licensing and the failure of mental health services. It’s sad/scary rather than dumb/funny. No wanking stories though? Dammit, that’s some of my best material. The store I worked for sold porn, used porn. Dwell on that for a moment and you’ll realize that my daily crust was earned in an environment that was rife with comedic potential.

And the Traveller eps were bollocks (Wesley, eugh) whereas Q is irresistibly snarky, more fun than disemvowelling trolls and totally has a thing going with Picard ::ducks and runs in case either of these opinions are anathema to any serious fans there may be around::

the Q are immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent, possessing the ability of instantaneous matter-energy transformation and teleportation, as well as the ability of time travel. Their apparent abilities include moving entire asteroid belts and stars, creating alternate timelines, and affecting universal states of nature such as the gravitational constant.

But “not supernatural”. Sheesh.

What does a extra-dimensional have to do to get any respect round here?

The Q might as WELL be supernatural but are not. It can also be argued that inference from what the Q say indicates that they came about to their current state rather than always having been the way they are. Their powers may be technological or have started out technological and are now so intertwined with themselves that it looks like magic.

Not Always Right is a perpetual favorite of mine. I wish they archived their stuff, because some of it is too good to be forgotten.

I was notorious for my snappy comebacks to customers who gave me shit when I was a postal worker. Like the guy whose SSI check didn’t come in, I’d put out all the box mail, and even checked his box to make sure he hadn’t missed it when getting his mail, so it was late or there was some other kind of holdup that I couldn’t do anything about.

About ten minutes later, I’m emptying the collection box out by the street, and he yells at me across our crowded parking lot, “Bitch, where’s my mail?”

Oh yeah?

“How dare you talk to me that way! You get your sorry ass back in there, and I’ll deal with you when I’m damned good and ready.”

This was around noon, the peak hour for our particular post office in a dicey part of town, so there were people everywhere, and they were all laughing and cheering at what I’d said. I don’t know what the idiot’s reaction was, because I went about my business, too busy for that jerkwad.

I do remember the little old black church ladies with their pretty dresses and hats were near the front door when I went back, and they told me, “Good for you!” and “That’s right, sugar, don’t you let him talk to you that way!”

The guy was whining to my supervisor inside. The latter told me, as he opened the door to the back for me, “Go take a break, Slugger.” And that’s all management ever said to me about it.

Newt regeneration isn’t remarkable at all. It’s just dedifferentiation and redifferentiation triggered by physical damage, and research into its details has progressed quite far. What is remarkable is that we can’t do it – but there’s already a good explanation for it:

We have a much faster metabolism than newts. We process a lot more oxygen per time. That’s an insanely messy process*; therefore, more metabolism = more oxygen radicals = more mutations.

When mutated cells are too strongly encouraged to divide, the cancer risk rises a lot.

If we could regenerate as well as a newt, we’d have died out long ago. That’s strong natural selection for a heavy lid on cell division.

(…Oh, and… we can’t regenerate 2/3 of our heart because we simply die too quickly when the bloodstream stops. Most salamanders are small enough to do serious amounts of skin-breathing, and see above on their slow metabolism that simply doesn’t need as much oxygen in the first place.)

* Stupid Design. The water-splitting part of photosynthesis happens without any production of oxygen radicals: the two water molecules that become an oxygen molecule stay bound to the manganese atoms throughout the entire cycle. The water-generating part of respiration is… just… we dump four electrons somewhere and wait for an oxygen molecule to pick some or all of them up. *headdesk* That’s why we can’t have nice things.

:Snort: I’ve thought about this for a day now and I can’t come up with a better one, dammit. Definitely need more sleep.

Ms. Daisy Cutter:

Uh…

I disavow any and all implications to said slip, lacy, Freudian or otherwise. :p

David Marjanović:

* Stupid Design. The water-splitting part of photosynthesis happens without any production of oxygen radicals: the two water molecules that become an oxygen molecule stay bound to the manganese atoms throughout the entire cycle. The water-generating part of respiration is… just… we dump four electrons somewhere and wait for an oxygen molecule to pick some or all of them up. *headdesk* That’s why we can’t have nice things.

Can I pleaze has your brain….puleeeeezzzz! I promise not to treat it as poorly as I’ve treated my own, honest.

We have a much faster metabolism than newts. We process a lot more oxygen per time. That’s an insanely messy process*; therefore, more metabolism = more oxygen radicals = more mutations.

When mutated cells are too strongly encouraged to divide, the cancer risk rises a lot.

If we could regenerate as well as a newt, we’d have died out long ago. That’s strong natural selection for a heavy lid on cell division.

Essentially, there was a selective advantage in having a faster metabolism, and losing regeneration was a side effect of that. Note that faster metabolism = faster working neurons = faster and more complex behavioral responses = decreased likelihood of being injured and needing to regenerate = decreased selective advantage to having regenerative capabilities.

Of course, a designer with foresight to anticipate complex social support for injured individuals, (medical and nursing care being the most advanced and obvious form thereof), would have been wise to keep the regenerative capabilities around, if dormant, to be reactivated in its supposed crown-jewel-favored-species when the time was right.

And the other consequence of a faster metabolism is increased fuel requirements to fuel that metabolism.

Your typical mammal (or bird) with a missing limb will starve to death from the inability to get food as effectively without the limb long before there is much chance to regenerate that limb. Your typical amphibian generally won’t.

And this drops the advantage of being able to regenerate limbs, for a mammal without a social safety net, to almost zero.

A mammal is much better served by adaptions that help it keep its limbs intact….